Maybe legalized prostitutes can join Bar Associations as honorary members. Our common motto is to get the money up front, because the moment we are no longer needed, no one pays us a dime they agreed to pay. Does this mean that the days of prostitutes getting paid to go away after it's over are over?

mmm. funny they mention germany. in germany a woman was on unemployment. like in america, you can only stay on unemployment if you look for a job. so the state unemployment agency referred her to a job opening. at a brothel. the implication being, if you refuse that work, you lose your unemployment.

I've always thought that Barney Frank got a huge pass for his years running a gay brothel during the Age of AIDS. Then the sicko spends the next 20 years telling the rest of the world they don't do enough to stop the spread of HIV.

in germany a woman was on unemployment. like in america, you can only stay on unemployment if you look for a job. so the state unemployment agency referred her to a job opening. at a brothel. the implication being, if you refuse that work, you lose your unemployment.

As I understand it, the brothel had a nightclub or bar attached to it, and the woman was referred to a waitressing job in the nightclub. Granted, many people would find that sort of work morally repugnant, but it's not as if she were told to become an actual hooker.

Lost in all the hullabaloo here is the joy that pimps in Saskatoon and Chilliwack must be feeling right now.

They just lost their monopoly. Why would that make them happy?

Prostitution has always been legal in Canada, but there was no legal way for prostitutes to arrange for a safe working environment. That meant either (a) working solo or (b) relying on criminals for protection. Naturally, the criminals in group (b) represented an additional threat to group (a).

In a world where prostitutes can set up a brothel and hire bouncers, who needs pimps?

Just like the MSM shows all public school teachers who get caught having sex with their students as hot blondes sleeping with mature boys, all the Left's hookers are feminist entrepeneurs being kept down by the Man.No mention of the countless underaged and impoverished girls from all over the world who get forced into the short life of violence and sex abuse that is the reality of prostitution.

Let me expand on that a little. There are two reasons for a prostitute to work with a pimp:

(1): He is forcing her to work for him.

(2): She needs, or thinks she needs, his services, e.g. protection and collections.

Item #1 is still illegal. Nobody has overturned the laws against rape and extortion. That leaves reason #2.

Like I said in my earlier post, prior to this ruling a prostitute's ONLY option for support services was to rely on criminals, because taking money from a prostitute in exchange for services was illegal. Now, those criminals have lost their monopoly -- they have to compete with all the people willing to do LEGAL work in security, collections, et al. They have to compete with everyone willing to deal with unruly customers, rather than just with those people willing deal with unruly customers AND risk prison time.

Is the point coming into focus, now? Prior to this ruling prostitutes had to either go it alone or rely on ruthless criminals. Now they can go it alone, work in a brothel, work for an escort service, personally hire legitimate protection and collection services, or rely on ruthless criminals.

Guess what? "Ruthless criminals" don't look like a terribly attractive option, now do they. Like I said, some men will still force women into prostitution -- but that's still illegal. What isn't illegal is providing the one useful service pimps ever provided. It's going to be a lot harder to keep a grip on a prostitute who actually has options.

The same thing happened during Prohibition. If you wanted to sell alcohol, guess what? You were going to be dealing with dangerous, violent criminals. Did these dangerous, violent criminals disappear once it was possible to legally purchase alcohol from a wholesaler? No. But there were a lot fewer of them, and a lot more legitimate businessmen offering the now-legal product.

So a prostitute turning tricks at about $50 per hour on a good night is going to hire a corporate security service at its rate, and that corporate security service is going to offer street corner protection and convince johns to pay up.

So a prostitute turning tricks at about $50 per hour on a good night is going to hire a corporate security service at its rate, and that corporate security service is going to offer street corner protection and convince johns to pay up.

Seven, I can't do ALL the thinking for you. You're going to have to use your brain eventually.

No, a prostitute at the very bottom of the earnings bracket is not going to hire the most expensive security out there, and I know you're not stupid enough to think I was suggesting she would. What she CAN do, quite easily, is team up with a couple of other low-end prostitutes, set up a simple brothel in a cheap apartment, and hire a bouncer. For that matter, simply being able to rent the apartment and share it with other women -- illegal, prior to this ruling -- provides a huge measure of security whether a bouncer is hired or not.

Now, the $200-$500/hr women who populate the personal ads of newspapers nationwide? They might hire corporate security. They can certainly afford to hire personal protection.

I find this discussion very quaint.

I've offered an explanation, which happens to be the one sex workers and their advocates agree is accurate. You're welcome to continue speaking from a position of willful ignorance if it makes you happy, though. I'm used to it.

I think what you'll see (if the ruling stands) is similar to what's available in Nevada currently.

Brothels will become more popular, and probably the street walkers less so, since it's easier to organize around a legal version of the oldest profession.

Pimps may still exist, but they will be marginalized by the entrepreneurs who can provide a clean, safe premises and attractive girls at reasonable rates, now that it's legal, like getting a tattoo.

Johns who cannot pay up are now liable to be sued in small claims courts for their failure to pay.

The girls will be able to get health and other benefits now working for a legally incorporated or sole proprietorship business. They still may succumb to drug addictions (like lots of prostitutes currently do) and there's the criminal element that exists around that.

However, such business can now fire hookers who fail drug tests and not face legal repercussions!

Meaningless considering that it's 2-4 times the mass of the earth which is basically double the gravity. It doesn't have plantery rotation and therefore you, as an organism are screwed to within a tiny sliver along its vertical hemispheric circumference. Plus its 20ly away which might as well be on the other side of the universe for all it matters. It's a close cosmological object, but it's roughly a 200 - 250 year ride at current speeds and you still don't know what the fuck you are going to get when you get there. Oppsie!!!

I think it's possible that some prostitutes seek out pimps the way some women seek out abusive husbands. Damaged people have damaged relationships......I'm sure there are some forms of prostitution that are more exploitative than others, but only in the way that filter cigarettes are less carcogenic than Luckies.

This is the leftard method of thinking that if you decriminalize something, then the consequences of said crime go away. O rly?

On the one hand, we have the fact that both economic and criminal justice theory tell us that the rape, murder, and robbery of prostitutes will decline when the profession is legalized. On the other hand, we have the fact that we have already seen the actual rape, murder, and robbery rates of prostitutes decline in places where the profession is legalized.

I like to think one doesn't have to be a "leftard" to notice reality smacking you in the face.

Anyhoo, you're confused about what happened here. The court didn't legalize prostitution in Canada. Prostitution has ALWAYS been legal in Canada. What the court legalized was communication by prostitutes, use of property for prostitution, and -- most importantly -- use of the proceeds from prostitution to pay other people.

I suppose you COULD say:

This is the leftard method of thinking that if you decriminalize letting prostitutes operate openly and pay people to protect them, prostitutes will be murdered, raped, and robbed much less often

It is a libertarian belief, and conservatives occasionally like to pretend it is a conservative belief, that the government shouldn't be in the business of deciding what's best for you.

If you accept that the government has the right to forbid you from making choices the government considers bad for you, it is no longer possible to form a principled rights-based against, e.g., ObamaCare. The most you can say is "well naturally the government has the right to dictate how I care for my health, I just disagree with the particular dictates".

I dont know but given that this planet earth was created by Magratheans (hired by mice) it is possible prostitution was an experiment concocted by the mice to see if men could make love while not in love.

After many sexually transmitted diseases threaten the very survival of the specie the mice concluded that men love sex more than anything else.

Rev -- You hit on something interesting there, and it's what makes me more conservative than libertarian.

I don't try to make any kind of universal argument against ObamaCare and I don't believe there is one. If the people of, say, Manhattan want that law for their community, it's fine by me.

I don't want it. Moreover, I don't think it's practicable. It won't save money. It will narrow choices. It will result in death panels. But I don't find anything morally repugnant about the concept of socialized medicine. It's the carrying out that makes it bad, because it's impossible to carry out well given limited resources, which is always going to be a problem...on this planet, anyway.

On the one hand, we have the fact that both economic and criminal justice theory tell us that the rape, murder, and robbery of prostitutes will decline when the profession is legalized. On the other hand, we have the fact that we have already seen the actual rape, murder, and robbery rates of prostitutes decline in places where the profession is legalized.

This is what the judge said: "Scott said the decision means sex workers no longer have to “worry about being raped, robbed or murdered."

This is a false premise whether legalization occurs or not. I do not deny that decriminalization against prostitution is lessened, but the statement made by the judge is false and frankly egregious. Legal or not, prostitutes will be raped, robbed, and murdered. No difference in my opinion that legalization of narcotics will or would yield the same statement made by the judge if one vice were traded for another.

That was my point in attacking this judge's naivete.

I like to think one doesn't have to be a "leftard" to notice reality smacking you in the face.

At the core, I'm in essence a realist, only as I've grown into my adulthood does clarity of maturity give me a better sense that my glasses have lost their rose colored shade. However, being a realist, I also see the divergence of one ideological imprint on vice vs. the real implications of the overall permissiveness of said vice and it's unintended consequences. If you want to stop at decriminalization of vice, that's your prerogative, but I'm more interested in going deeper to understand why it takes the elimination of shame to legitimize something we all know is wrong. Oldest profession or not. Decriminalized or not. Just because you remove the mask doesn't mean the ugliness underneath goes away too.

Anyhoo, you're confused about what happened here. The court didn't legalize prostitution in Canada. Prostitution has ALWAYS been legal in Canada. What the court legalized was communication by prostitutes, use of property for prostitution, and -- most importantly -- use of the proceeds from prostitution to pay other people.

Eliminating one illegal revenue collector for a state collector still doesn't make it right. Now that Canadians can run brothels and setup little armies of guardians around their neighborhoods for the sake of setting up shop without fear of reprisals, then I suppose the neighbors and neighborhoods will be welcoming them with open arms? Maybe they will having prostitution block parties all around the communities of Canada in celebration perhaps? Great day for Canada. A country that has given up.

I suppose you COULD say:

This is the leftard method of thinking that if you decriminalize letting prostitutes operate openly and pay people to protect them, prostitutes will be murdered, raped, and robbed much less often

... but that would be a little TOO obviously silly, wouldn't it?

If it isn't criminal to operate openly and it isn't criminal to set up shop openly, then why the need for protection? It's all out in the open, no? Liberty and privacy notwithstanding?

"If you accept that the government has the right to forbid you from making choices the government considers bad for you, it is no longer possible to form a principled rights-based against, e.g., ObamaCare. "

Conversely, how can a libertarian support any regulations at all, as against speeding, theft, or murder?

More, if prostitution is legal, why should not the government demand the unemployed take those jobs or cancel their welfare checks?

More, a not-small number of hookers operate to fund drug habits, drugs which libertarians want legalized as well, meaning that people have the right to meth themselves to oblivion and then sell their body parts to fund it. Sounds like a plan.

Worse, wherever prostitution is legal, human trafficking is soon to follow. In the Netherlands, following the legalization of prostitution, their was a massive in the number of women trafficked in from neighbouring countries and a significant increase in child prostitution.

Female prostitutes account for 15% of suicides reported by US and French hospitals. Women and girls working in prostitution in Canada have a mortality rate 40 times the national average. "A research study in Chicago showed that 21.4% of women working as escorts and exotic dancers had been raped more than 10 times. An American study in Minneapolis showed that 78% of prostituted people had been victims of rape by pimps and customers, on average, 49 times a year. 49% had been the victims of abduction and had been transported from one state to another and 27% had been mutilated.

In Austria, 90% of prostituted people are originally from other countries. In 2003, the number of victims of trafficking for the purpose of prostitution was estimated at 20,000 annually, compared to 2,100 annually at the start of the previous decade. In the ten years from 1990 to 2000, 77,500 young foreign women have fallen prey to traffickers. These young women, who are frequently minors, and who can be purchased on the markets in the Balkans for US $600, are subjected to an average of between 30 and 100 sexual contacts a day."source

Pogo, Libertarians aren't Anarchists. Libertarians believe in government, just LIMITED government. You'll definitely find Libertarians coming down on the side of law and order for "victim" crimes like theft and murder. Regarding prostitution, I'd guess you'd find an almost equal number of Libertarians on both sides of the legalization issue, hanging on whether or not it's a "victimless" crime. Your safety statistics might go a long way towards convincing more that it's not. But couldn't it also be possible that a legal and regulated sex trade might be safer than the current black market practice? Does Canada have higher incidence of the problems you raise than the US?

Pogo says in part "Conversely, how can a libertarian support any regulations at all, as against speeding, theft, or murder?"

What a bizarre understanding of libertarianism. Libertarians believe legitimate law prohibits actions which harm other people. Both murder and theft clearly harm other people.

Most libertarians also allow for rules required to manage modern society. We're against stupid rules not justified by facts. So for example many are against the ridiculously low speed limits designed to make busybodies feel better and give the police the opportunity to make money off the public.

Your other statistics don't support your position. Of course we believe forced prostitution should be illegal, as should child prostitution. While you claim legalizing prostitution increases trafficking your statistics only show that trafficing occurs, not that legalization increases it.

Virtually the entire history of mankind proves the folly of using law to control social interactions. Libertarians simply recognize this and believe we should stop wasting billions (recently estimated drug war cost: 84 billion per year) trying to accomplish something which we will never achieve.

"What a bizarre understanding of libertarianism. "Please read again. I was responding to Rev's bizarre understanding of conservatism, and showing how that comment led to a similarly bizarre understanding of libertarianism. It was snark.

"While you claim legalizing prostitution increases trafficking your statistics only show that trafficing occurs, not that legalization increases it."The statistics show that trafficking increases in nations after they legalize prostitution, and does not increase in nations that don't.

Not one of the facts you quoted even purports to demonstrate that legalization increases trafficking. They support the assertions that (a) bad things happen to prostitutes, and (b) sex trafficking occurs.

If you think some other statistic supports your assertion please share it.

First, someone who "spanks some ass" is not a Prostitute. She is a Dominatrix. I suggest anybody here who chooses to use the services of a Dominatrix and confuses the two be prepared to explain the welt on your face and your inability to walk straight for a week. Prostitutes that offer domination like services are very low rent. By the way, the Profession of Dominatrix is legal in most states as long as no sex is involved. In New York State you can even have a legal bondage house.

Now to dispense with the usual Libertarian nonsense. In the Internet Age no escort needs a pimp. For $1000 she can do a photo shoot and put a website together and get listed by any number of services. She can screen her clients in advance and will keep all her money.

The only people who want to legalize prostitution are the Heidi Flieses of the world and of course Uncle Sam. In the pre-Internet days a "working girl" had two options: the street and the service. The expensive escort had no access to a client list and streetwalker did more personal advertising. The street is a dangerous place so you need your pimp with customized pink Cadillac.The call girl needed someone to get her the clients. Heidi Flies is merely a high class pimp. The internet has changed all that. Now an enterprising girl can do all herself. The pressure for legalization comes from the pimp industry not the sophisticated girls. The cops leave them alone and their clients pay well.

The women in this business don't want health insurance or a retirement plan or social security. It is a cash business that if you are good at it you can clear $100k tax free per year with one client a night. The girls you would want to see are far more savvy then their libertarian and radical feminist defenders.

Conversely, how can a libertarian support any regulations at all, as against speeding, theft, or murder?

Libertarians believe that the legitimate role of government is to prevent people from violating the rights of others without their consent.

So it is obvious that murder and theft should be illegal, and prostitution and drug use should not be. As for speeding, I suspect you could have a very, very long argument among libertarians as to whether government speed restrictions are justifiable. Me, I live in California. What speed restrictions?

More, if prostitution is legal, why should not the government demand the unemployed take those jobs or cancel their welfare checks?

The libertarian perspective is that the government shouldn't be providing welfare checks in the first place.

meaning that people have the right to meth themselves to oblivion and then sell their body parts to fund it.

You denied that there was any increase in human trafficing with legalizing prostitution. The implication is that since there are laws against it everything was ok. But legalization raises the suppliers need for women because like any product both the demand and the quantity demand for legalized prostitution increases with legaliztion. Do you think this extra supply of women needed to satisfy this increased demand all comes from women saying "oh boy it would be just peachy to sell my body?"

Look sport, my profession takes me to locales like th Balkans where the trade in women and girls is brisk and headed for the legalized brothels of Western Europe. That's the real world not your psuedo-libertarian fantasy world.

You denied that there was any increase in human trafficing with legalizing prostitution.

No, Marshal denied that. I don't think the data is clear enough to make a claim one way or the other. What I did say was that we already have both human trafficking and laws against it.

If you are bothered by people who enslave women, go after people who enslave women. You can't justify punishing one group of people (prostitutes and johns) on the grounds that it discourages a completely different group of people (slavers and traffickers) from committing crimes. That would be morally depraved even if it worked.

Pogo wrote:In Sweden, where prostitution remains illegal, they did not experience trafficking like that noted in the Netherlands, where it increased following legalization.

I can't imagine why people think that making something desirable legal would decrease teh demand for it. Even though prostitution became legalized it in no way decreased the trafficking. In fact there was now more of a need to traffic, due to the increased demand.

The same thing would happen for drugs. Even if cocaine were legal it wouldn't stop any of the turf wars of drug dealers. And it would very quickly become illegal again in certain cases. How do you regulate chrystal meth for example?

I can't imagine why people think that making something desirable legal would decrease teh demand for it.

Making something legal increases demand for it, certainly. It also increases the supply; more people are willing to provide a good or a service if they don't have to (a) risk prison time and (b) deal with criminals.

The prevalence of human trafficking in Europe today probably has more to do with open borders (from the EU and the lowering of the Iron Curtain) than with any change in prostitution laws. Countries in which prostitution had been legal for decades or centuries (e.g., Germany) experienced a huge influx of foreign-born prostitutes in the 1990s. So did the United States, for that matter.

As with all illegal immigration, the solution is tougher enforcement.

The same thing would happen for drugs. Even if cocaine were legal it wouldn't stop any of the turf wars of drug dealers.

The turf wars are fought because cocaine is enormously profitable. Cocaine is enormously profitable solely because it is illegal. Notice how cigarette vendors never fight turf wars, even though tobacco is far more addictive than cocaine and the number of tobacco addicts far outnumbers the number of cokeheads?

Rev, I don't want you to think that I didn't respond to your reply to me, but I did and now it's gone. Suffice to say that I'm not going to try and repost it simply because the moment has past. Just thought I'd let you know that.

"In Sweden, where prostitution remains illegal, they did not experience trafficking like that noted in the Netherlands, where it increased following legalization."

I cannot reach the article, but this doesn't show anything. Why is Sweden alone cherrypicked? There are many countries in Europe where prostitution remains legal. The fact that one doesn't show an uptick means nothing, what happened everywhere?

Second, is the Netherlands really experiencing increased trafficking? Or are we more likely to discover it now that other prostitutes and johns can report this without revealing a crime?